On 4/11/2011 5:04 AM, GMAN wrote:
> In article<4eb25301$0$19225$(E-Mail Removed)>, Krypsis<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 3/11/2011 2:43 PM, GMAN wrote:
>>> In article<4eb19786$0$13391$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Krypsis<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2011 1:04 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>>>>> A few weeks ago 2TB Seagate Barracuda XT bare drives were $130 at
>>>>> NewEgg; by the end of last week they were $250. But on Saturday I bought
>>>>> the retail version of the same drive at the Chicago-area Fry's for $160
>>>>> (limit one per customer).
>>>>>
>>>>> Two weeks ago I bought a retail-package 2TB Barracuda LP at Best Buy for
>>>>> $100; this week the regular price is shown as $90, and they are on sale
>>>>> for $75 -- and they do price adjustments within 30 days. NewEgg no
>>>>> longer lists them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those drives are all made in China, but I think that some components or
>>>>> sub-assemblies come from the flood-affected factories in Thailand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perce
>>>>
>>>> After having 3 out of 5 Seagate 1 Terabyte drives die recently, and
>>>> being assured that the remaining 2 will soon suffer a similar fate, I no
>>>> longer buy Seagate drives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You did get the memo about the firmware update to prevent this??????? The
>>> firmware was released way over a year ago to fix the issues for the 750Gb
>> thru
>>> the 1.5 TB drives.
>>
>> No memo but I found out the bad news from the dealer from whom I
>> purchased the drives. After losing the first drive, I contacted Seagate
>> and updated the firmware. I was warned by the dealer rep that the fix
>> wasn't a guarantee as his experience was that the entire 7200.11 batch
>> was faulty and the update merely stopgap. He was right, shortly after
>> the update I lost two more. The remaining 2 drives are no longer in a
>> raid 5 configuration and are, for want of a better term, spares. They
>> will not be used for critical duties.
>>
>> Seagate is well and truly off my radar now!
>>
> The 7200.11 are not enterprise drives and for the life of me i dont
> understand why it suprises you that they fail in a RAID environment.
>
My "RAID5 array" was only ever turned on when required to store or
access data and this would amount to no more than a few hours a week.
Hardly an "enterprise" system. Had I wanted a 100% duty cycle storage
system, then I would have purchased the appropriate drives for it, most
probably 10 or 15k SCSI. My needs simply didn't warrant such expense.
>
>
> http://forums.storagereview.com/index.
> php/topic/29208-how-to-use-desktop-drives-in-raid-without-tlererccctl/
>
>
> "Hard drive manufacturers are drawing a distinction between "desktop" grade
> and "enterprise" grade drives. The "desktop" grade drives can take a long time
> (~2 minutes) to respond when they find an error, which causes most RAID
> systems to label them as failed and drop them from the array.
Neither the platter surface nor the heads are the source of the problems
I experienced. The drive would simply "brick" itself due to firmware
issues. One of my drives, which I supposedly purchased as "new" had
already been back to the factory for repair. It was then onsold as new
through normal retail outlets. I only found this out when I contacted
Seagate with my issues via their helpdesk and quoted the relevant
numbers to them. Nice one Seagate. And, yes, it came with complete
factory sealed packaging. as did all the others.
>
> The solution provided by the manufacturers is for us to purchase the
> "enterprise" grade drives, at twice the cost, which report errors promptly
> enough so that this isn't a problem. This "enterprise" feature is called TLER,
> ERC, and CCTL.
>
As stated above, my needs aren't in any way as severe as an "enterprise"
so desktop drives were all I figured I needed. Besides, one drive failed
in my daily desktop. Unlike the RAID systemn, the desktop motherboard
does power the drive down when not in use which, in my case, was
probably 80% - 90% of the time.
--
Krypsis
Similar Threads
